Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011  (Read 669696 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1320 on: May 19, 2011, 03:20:40 AM »
Sorry about that screw up.  It's unlikely that Harti will amend those posts so I may redo them all.  Just needed to get onto another page here.  Abject apologies guys - I sized that report wrongly.  What I'll do is repost the report and then Harti can simply delete the previous to get it back in order. 

Again.  Sorry.  I'll start it all again.


REPORT ON TWO TESTS OF A SWITCHING CIRCUIT FOR DEMONSTRATION AT CPUT on 12TH MARCH 2011.

Prepared by Rosemary Ainslie, Donovan Martin, Evan Robinson, Mario Human.

The following tests were designed to evaluate some aspects of a thesis that predicts a potential for the conservation of potential difference at a supply. This thesis is based on a non-classical magnetic field model and what is demonstrated here is a non-conservative field condition on a circuit, as required by that model. While this may confront Kirchhoff’s Laws, the experimental results are in line with Faraday’s Laws of Induction. This may suggest that Inductive Laws supersede the conservative field requirements. It is proposed, therefore, that the results are in line with classical requirements albeit that they seemingly contradict the results determined by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

1 FIRST TEST

1.1 Circuit description
The experimental apparatus comprises a simple switching circuit (see Figure 1). 6 x 12 volt lead acid batteries are in series with both a heating element (RL1) and 5 MOSFET transistors (Q1) in parallel. The transistors are driven by a functions generator. A current sensing resistor (Rshunt) on the source rail of the supply determines the rate of current flow both to and from the battery supply source.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1321 on: May 19, 2011, 03:26:18 AM »
2 - continued - revised report

1.2 Schedule of circuit components
1.2.1   Resistor element RL1 - Incoloy alloy air heating rod element threaded with nichrome resistive wire. Resistance = 11.11Ω, L = 2.23μH. 200 watts. Supplied by Specific Heat
1.2.2    Current sensing resistor Rshunt - 4 ceramic wire wound 1 watt resistors 1Ω each, placed in parallel. Resistance therefore = 0.25Ω. L = 220nH
1.2.3   MOSFET transistor Q1 - 1 x IRFPG50 with Zener body diode
1.2.3 MOSFET transistor Q2 – 4 x IRFPG50 with Zener body diode
1.2.4   Function generator
1.2.5   6 x 12v batteries - Raylite silver calcium

1.3 Schedule of measuring instruments
1.3.1   Le Croy WaveJet 324 200 MHz Oscilloscope (DSO) - 2GS/s 400 Vpk tolerance. Sample range maximum 500 000 samples
1.3.2   Tektronix MSO 3054 Mixed Signal Oscilloscope (DSO) - 500 MHz 2.5 GS/s. Sample range maximum 1 million samples
1.3.3   FLUKE Digital Multimeter TopTronic T48 True RMS with thermocouple measuring to 400°C (rated at ±1%+4).

1.4 Circuit operation
The circuit is designed to allow a secondary current flow that is induced from the collapsing fields of RL1 during the OFF period of the duty cycle as a result of counter electromotive force (CEMF).  This reverse current path is enabled by the body diode in the transistors as well as the eccentric positioning of MOSFETs (Q2) that are configured to enable a negative current flow driven by a negative charge applied to the Gate of Q2.  This allows a current flow that returns to the battery supply source to recharge it.  Small adjustments to the offset of the functions generator enables the generation of a ‘burst oscillation’ mode that is triggered when the gate voltage defaults below zero.  This oscillation occurs at a naturally resonating frequency determined by the impedance of the circuit components.  The adjustment to the offset also requires careful tuning to regulate the level of power required to be dissipated at the load.  See Figure 3 for typical gate voltage setting.

1.5 Measurement of wattage dissipated
Measurement of the energy dissipated at the resistor element (RL1) was determined by comparison with results from a control to avoid the complexity of factoring in power factor corrections. A constant voltage was applied from a DC power supply source in series with RL1. The voltage was then steadily increased in increments of 1 volt each from 1 volt through to 22 volts. The wattage was then determined as the squared product of the voltage over the resistance of RL1,

 (1)


The temperature of the resistor was then recorded against the applied wattage and the temperature difference above ambient determined the level of wattage as represented in Table 1 and Figure 2.


edited.  corrected the inductance measured over the shunts.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2011, 04:42:25 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1322 on: May 19, 2011, 03:28:39 AM »
3 - continued revised report

1.6 Measurement of wattage delivered by the battery supply
Power is calculated as vi. The flow of current (i) is determined by the voltage measured across Rshunt over the resistance of Rshunt.

 
(2)


Typically the battery supplies a direct current. Therefore, voltage that is measured above zero, is considered to result in a current flow delivered by the battery. And, conversely, voltage that is measured below zero is considered to result in a current flow delivered to the battery. The instantaneous wattage delivered to or by the battery is then determined as the product of the voltage across the batteries and the current.

2. SECOND TEST

2.1 Circuit description
The circuit is configured identically to the diagram in Figure 1 but with a reduction in the number of batteries applied to three, supplying approximately 36v. All other parameters are identical to the First Test.

2.2 Circuit operation
With a reduced supply voltage, the voltage across Rshunt increases, corresponding to the increase from the positive applied voltage signal from the gate during the ON period of the duty cycle and as determined by the offset. This results in an increase in current flow from the battery. This increase is commensurate with an increase in temperature rise that is measured to be dissipated on RL1. The rate of temperature rise depends on the offset adjustment and the applied source battery voltage during this ON time. At its highest setting, this results in an excess of 44 watts being dissipated. It has not been possible to test this to higher temperatures and for extended periods, as the there is a limit to the voltage tolerance of the DSOs.

2.3 Measurement of wattage dissipated at the load
The applied protocol is consistent with that described in 1.5 of Test 1. 

2.4 Measurement of wattage delivered by the battery supply
The mean average and cycle mean average of the voltages measured across Rshunt now default to positive. Instantaneous wattage analsys is based on para 1.6 above.


3. RESULTS

3.1 First test
The temperature over RL1 indicates that about 6 watts is being dissipated as heat. However, the instantaneous wattage analysis indicates that more energy has been returned to the battery than has been supplied resulting in a net zero loss of potential difference from the supply.  Of interest is that the mean and cycle mean average voltage across Rshunt are consistently negative. 

More wattage returned to the battery than was delivered.
Wattage dissipated at RL1 = 6 watts.
Sustained periodic condition of oscillation enabled for 2.7 minutes to the limit of the intervals allowed by the function generator

3.2 Second test
The mean average and cycle mean average voltage across Rshunt indicates that some current has been discharged by the battery to the source rail. However, instantaneous wattage analysis applied to the voltage measured across the battery and Rshunt indicate, here too, that the battery supply source has had more energy returned to recharge it than was first applied to the circuit.  When this is applied to each sample from a spreadsheet analysis across the 500 000 to 1 million samples supplied by the digital storage oscilloscopes, then the product of this and the battery voltage represents the instantaneous wattage. The sum of these values, divided by the number of samples, represents the average wattage delivered over the entire sample range. This results in a negative value indicating that more energy is still being returned to the battery than was delivered. This is in line with the math function of the DSOs where it, too, indicates an increase of wattage back to the battery supply over the amount of wattage initially delivered from that supply.

More wattage returned to the battery than was delivered
Wattage dissipated at RL1= 44 watts
Switching results in the generation of extreme spiking at the transitional phases of the switch. 

4. ANOMALIES
 
4.1   It is understood that during the ON time the applied signal at the gate will enable a current flow from the battery supply. With the application of more than 36 volts from the battery supply, the circuit can be tuned so that there is no measured voltage or consequent flow of current through to the source rail of the supply during this ON period. The precise cause of this restriction has not been identified and requires further research. Nor can this condition be simulated.

4.2   When the offset of the function generator is adjusted (see Figure 3), the falling edge of the pulse results in a burst oscillation mode. Parasitic inductance is a well-known consequence of MOSFETs placed in parallel. It is undesirable for switching applications and is therefore, traditionally, factored out of the circuitry. On this application we have enabled that oscillation to the limit of the function generator’s slowest switching speed at 2.7 minutes or 6.172mHz. No material or evident variation or decay of that resonance throughout that entire period, is observed (see Figure 4). This results in a measured increase of recharge at the battery supply as well as sustaining the temperature over the resistor. It would be desirable to extend this period of oscillation to see whether decay in this oscillation, eventually takes place. These results may warrant further research, as the implications are that the current flow may be perpetuated through this self-oscillation.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1323 on: May 19, 2011, 03:30:48 AM »
4 - continued revised report

4.3   Also apparent is that the oscillation is required to retain the temperature measured at the resistor at approximately 40°C above ambient. This temperature rise corresponds to a dissipation of approximately 6 watts at RL1 (according to Figure 2). The fact that it retains this heat is not a result of any unique properties to RL1 as the temperature is seen to fall steeply over a 3 minute period, when it is disconnected from the supply.

4.4   At these slowest switching speeds, at 6.172 mHz, and during that burst oscillation mode period where the frequency is measured at close to 1.5 MHz, the battery supply source is seen to recharge. The same oscillation amplitude is evident at all higher frequencies with the same attendant benefits.

4.5   The voltage across the shunt is at 180 degrees in anti phase with the voltage across the battery (Figure 5) and the voltage across the Drain (Figure 6).  While this is repeatable in simulations it is not evident that the oscillations can be sustained at the same amplitudes over an extended period.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1324 on: May 19, 2011, 03:38:17 AM »
5 - continued revised report

4.6   Typically, and as can be seen from the oscilloscope screen shots, it is possible to tune the circuit through adjustments to the offset and the duty cycle, to obtain a negative mean average and cycle mean average voltage measured at Rshunt. This indicates that there is more current being returned to the battery supply than was first delivered. This is confirmed by detailed analysis of data downloads to spreadsheets.

4.7   There is evidence of approximately 6 watts of energy dissipated at RL1, and upwards of 40 watts on Test 2, at no measurable cost of energy delivered from the supply. As this heat is not at the cost of energy from the supply it suggests that there is an alternate energy supply source or classical prediction errs in its assumption of equivalence in the transfer of energy.

4.8   Measurement of battery voltage was determined by the mean average voltage on the digital storage oscilloscopes, as well as from the digital multimeters, with probes placed directly on the positive and negative terminals of the battery supply. These battery voltages fluctuate in line with the evident voltage variations of the waveforms displayed. What is shown is that there is a recharge period after the discharge of current from the voltage during the ON period of the duty cycle. It is more clearly evident at the slowest switching speed. This indicates that there is a battery recharge during the period when the switch is in burst oscillation mode that occurs when the gate voltage is negative. Therefore is there evidence that the oscillations resulting from this negative triggering, are indeed recharging the battery.


5. SIMULATION

5.1   The circuit was setup in Simetrix version 5.4 (Figure 7) and simulated in correlation with the above tests (Figure 8).

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1325 on: May 19, 2011, 03:40:56 AM »
6 - final of the revised report

6.DISCUSSION

The results of this demonstration are consistent with the previous reported test results related to this circuitry. The difference here is that there is an extended period of self-induced oscillation following the falling edge of the gate drive signal. This appears to enhance the circuit performance to what is now measured as what appears to be an infinite co-efficient of performance. This value has been carefully evaluated, but it is preferred that the circuit and all its effects be carefully established by experts.

Therefore the intention of this demonstration is to bring these anomalies to the academic forum so that experts can research these effects more thoroughly. There are many questions here that need answers and it is considered that this is best established across a broad range of research to establish the checks and balances required for the progress of this new technology.

It is an unfortunate fact that publication of these results in academic journals will first require some accreditation. Attempts to publish in reviewed journals were denied, even prior to review of the submitted papers. Although not admitted, the indications are that this outright rejection was because the results of these experiments dramatically oppose mainstream prediction. It is earnestly proposed that open acknowledgement of the listed anomalies by experts, may therefore, be a catalyst to bridge mainstream’s scepticism that publication will be possible. And the further hope is that this demonstration will result in that required and wider acknowledgement of these anomalies. Then the technology can be progressed. This would be a desirable consequence, the more so as there may here exist some potential solutions to the global energy crisis that is growing ever more critical in the face of diminishing or pollutant energy sources coupled with our burgeoning global need for increased supplies.

Some mention must be made of those aspects of the tests that have not been thoroughly explored. The first relates to the battery recharge. It is a truth that the batteries used in these experiments have been used on a regular basis for over 5 months. During that time they have been continually subjected to both light and heavy use and they have never shown any evidence of loss of voltage. Nor have they been recharged by a conventional battery recharger. However there has not been a close analysis of the electrolytic condition of the batteries, before, during or even after their use. This will require a fuller study by our chemistry experts.

Results therefore were confined to classical measurement protocols with the distinction that the energy dissipated at the resistor element was established empirically and as it related to the heat dissipated on that resistor. Also to be noted is that there is a small but measurable inductance on the current-sensing resistor. This therefore begs some margin for error in the measurements. However, the measure of efficiency in the transfer of energy here is that extreme that a wide margin can be applied without materially altering these beneficial results.

It is, in any event, clearly evident that the circuit benefits from the inductances that are measured over the circuit components, including the wiring. As this is both inexpensive and easy to incorporate into circuit designs then the indications are that this aspect of the technology is easily established. What is needed is fuller research into the critical amounts to enable the burst oscillation mode and, indeed, into the requirements that enable this negative triggering of the oscillation, in the first instance. All prior circuits based on this simple design, have shown some indications of benefit. But this particular development has taken that earlier advantage to greater levels of energy efficiency than have been previously recorded.

There was no attempt made in these tests to precisely quantify the energy delivered by the battery. This was based on the fact that in both tests and in most variations to the frequency, and offset adjustments, the results show a zero discharge of energy from the battery supply. Therefore, any measured rise in temperature over ambient is seen as being anomalous.

It is also to be noted that the simulation of these waveforms are possible also indicating, as they do, a zero discharge of energy from the supply source. As the software for simulations are based on classical protocols then one may assume that classical measurement allows for these results. Certainly they confront Kirchhoff’s Laws albeit that they are in line with Faraday’s Inductive Laws.

Finally, the thesis that predicted these results points to the possibility that the hidden energy supply source, not factored into classical analysis, is in the material of the circuit components. This would still be in line with Einstein’s mass/energy equivalence and the thesis proposes that inductive and conductive material are able to induce their own energy as a result of applied potential differences. Effectively there is a potential in induced negative voltages that has not been fully exploited.


WITH THANKS

Our heartfelt gratitude is to the following:

To CPUT staff for the use of their facilities and for the critical input that was so freely available. Special thanks here to Deon Kallis for his patience in all aspects related to teaching and guiding us. This tribute is all the more heartfelt as he has consistently proposed that there is yet some classical explanation that has been overlooked. This may yet be proven. In general the consensus  here is that there are still some latent errors associated with this circuitry that are yet to be uncovered.  They do not, therefore endorse the results but merely the continued and thorough research of this.

Also a word of thanks to Markin Mwinga for his assistance during 2010.

To Battery Centre and RayLite batteries for the gift of 9 batteries.

To Coast to Coast for the supply of the LeCroy for such an extended period. Also for the brief use of the Fluke.

To Inala and to Pieter Rousseau for the use of the Tektronix. This was much required to confirm the results from our LeCroy.

To Specific Heat and Ikram Ebrahim for the donation of the element and his support in supplying exotic resistors as required.

To Roy Adams of Tecron who built a copper water cylinder for an earlier experiment and applied the required plumbing.

To Pick-n-Pay and Pick-n-Pay Durbanville, for providing refreshments at the demonstration


 




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1326 on: May 19, 2011, 04:27:10 AM »
Poynty - IS THAT IT?  Does it work with the one MOSFET on a sim but not with TWO?  I can't understand that.  And what is that resistor doing at the positive terminal?  Is it a load or a shunt?

Poynty?  Are you equivocating?  Because if you're not then this is very exciting.

Kindest regards,
Rosie



And I'm posting this again lest it's lost in that page sizing disaster.  Please answer this Poynty and please note that the sims in the report are still consistent with our own findings.

Ta muchly,
Rosie

EDITED. And for perfect clarity - here's the schematic I referrred to and the result I'm asking about
« Last Edit: May 19, 2011, 04:50:45 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1327 on: May 19, 2011, 05:35:54 AM »
FIRST TRY ...


http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287233#msg287233   ( Reply #1310 )

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287235#msg287235   ( Reply #1311 )

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287239#msg287239   ( Reply #1312 )

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287241#msg287241   ( Reply #1313 )

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287242#msg287242   ( Reply #1314 )

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287243#msg287243   ( Reply #1315 )

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287244#msg287244   ( Reply #1316 )

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287245#msg287245   ( Reply #1317 )
_______________________________________________________________________________


SECOND TRY ....

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287251#msg287251   ( Reply #1320 )

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287252#msg287252   ( Reply #1321 )

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287253#msg287253   ( Reply #1322 )

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287254#msg287254   ( Reply #1323 )

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287255#msg287255   ( Reply #1324 )

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287258#msg287258   ( Reply #1325 )

_______________________________________________________________________________



Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ....... I've never laughed so hard in my life ....   ;D



This is the "RA South Africa" teams rendition of all the information, data and details of numerous claims on the inventors finding of a COP> INFINITY on various experimental devices created by Rosemary Ainslie ?

This "REPORT" by far is the most mixed up mess that has ever been seen or presented to the open source community on any experimental device claim of a finding that a independent experimentalist could never use in a possible attempt to reproduce in a scientific method the inventors finding to supply "PROOF" of the founded claim of COP> INFINITY.




1) Several Tests and simulations all with different experimental circuit diagrams "COBBLED" up together in the so called REPORT.  ???


2) All Dates of Oscilloscope screen shots are not on the day of the exhibit.  ???


3) Speculation on some stupid THESIS .... what in the world does a thesis have to do with providing information on a finding to reproduce in a scientific method the finding of a claim for PROOF of that claim ... absolutely nothing at all just more unneeded crap.  ???


4) The 9.9 ohm resistor/inductor now is a "CUSTOM" made part .... not something off the shelf as the open source community was told earlier by Rosemary.  ???




On and On and On .... what a total mess given on documentation and information and certainly way below expectations from someone whom calls themselves a 10 year veteran knowing all of what is needed and required by electronics engineer or academics and not being provided in a scientific method.


I now will and advise others posting to wait because of the unprofessional re-posting "TWICE" and will hold all my "line by line" comments until such time no modifications to the above listed postings or reply's are set in stone and cant be whimsically changed to suit ones immediate needs or wants.


LOL .... whats been shown is so pathetic but actually expected.  ::)


Fuzzy
 :P

PS - As Joe Friday would say "Just the Facts" Madam .....

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1328 on: May 19, 2011, 11:08:47 AM »
Poynty - IS THAT IT?
Not sure what you mean?

Quote
Does it work with the one MOSFET on a sim but not with TWO?  I can't understand that.
It would also work with 2 MOSFETs or even 5 as you have them. Reducing the circuit down to its basic component parts however, is what I've shown.

Quote
And what is that resistor doing at the positive terminal?  Is it a load or a shunt?
I have included a 2 Ohm wire resistance in my schematic and simulation because you have included it in your simulation schematic.

Quote
Poynty?  Are you equivocating?  Because if you're not then this is very exciting.
I'm illustrating that with a simulation, I can show similar results to your actual results, and with the new CSR location and a reduced circuit configuration.

Is there possibly more to the story though, or is this an open-and-shut case proving COP>1?

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1329 on: May 19, 2011, 03:05:58 PM »
Not sure what you mean?
It would also work with 2 MOSFETs or even 5 as you have them. Reducing the circuit down to its basic component parts however, is what I've shown.
I have included a 2 Ohm wire resistance in my schematic and simulation because you have included it in your simulation schematic.
I'm illustrating that with a simulation, I can show similar results to your actual results, and with the new CSR location and a reduced circuit configuration.

Is there possibly more to the story though, or is this an open-and-shut case proving COP>1?

.99

Poynty Point.  This is very good news indeed.  I've just sent you an email.  Check it out.  And let me know what you think.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1330 on: May 19, 2011, 03:13:57 PM »
Guys,

We've been invited to submit a paper - yet again.  This time round I believe we'll have a good chance of passing review to publication.  it seems these forums are better subscribed than I realised and interest from some significant players has not been diminished.  And this time round we won't again run the risk of getting our submission sabotaged.

And Glen - when you finally manage to garner some respect and credibility with our readers - then they may, indeed, take cognisance of your appalling posts.  As it is you do much to advertise our work and nothing whatsoever to damage my good name - as you intend.  It goes to show that even bad publicity is good publicity.

 ;D

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1331 on: May 19, 2011, 06:55:01 PM »
Poynty Point.  This is very good news indeed.  I've just sent you an email.  Check it out.  And let me know what you think.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Rose,

I would be interested in getting your feedback and comments on the results I presented. Are they not in line with your own? Is there more to the story perhaps?

.99

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1332 on: May 19, 2011, 07:11:18 PM »
Guys,

We've been invited to submit a paper - yet again.  This time round I believe we'll have a good chance of passing review to publication.  it seems these forums are better subscribed than I realised and interest from some significant players has not been diminished.  And this time round we won't again run the risk of getting our submission sabotaged.

And Glen - when you finally manage to garner some respect and credibility with our readers - then they may, indeed, take cognisance of your appalling posts.  As it is you do much to advertise our work and nothing whatsoever to damage my good name - as you intend.  It goes to show that even bad publicity is good publicity.

 ;D

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary any credibility you had left is "GONE" especially after your posting of the pure nonsense "REPORT".

NO ONE HERE AT OVER UNITY cares about your pathetic thesis .... This thread is called Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011 for a reason none of which you have ever understood titles of threads at http://www.energeticforum.com/ .... http://www.overunityresearch.com/ ..... http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/ ..... http://www.thenakedscientists.com/ ( aka witsend , aetherevarising ) where you were banned for continued false and inaccurate statements and attacking members.   

I invite and challenge everyone readers and guests to look at the 8,000 postings of Rosemary's spread out over several years at these forums and see for yourself.

This thread here at OU.com was to show evidence of a finding on a claim of "YOURS" on efficiency of a experimental device "YOU" claim to have a COP> INFINITY.

You have not shown in any "SCIENTIFIC METHOD" how to obtain this efficiency in any way shape or form a experimental device "YOU" claim to have a COP> INFINITY and have "FAILED" miserably only a grade or high school electronic class will be interested in your claim.

You ( Rosemary ) cannot supply one credible package of one experiment that includes a circuit diagram with oscilloscope screen shots done during the test not even one to verify your claim of a finding.

The REPORT failed .... nothing for a independent experimentalist to take and to make a device to your specifications for testing and evaluation in a scientific method to verify the claim on a finding of COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY .... COP> INFINITY ....


There is nothing in this thread of value you are a terrible inventor and experimentalist and my credentials and expertise stand on there own and well documented unlike yours ..... this is what documentation looks like .... FYI 
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits.html  ( nine pages !!!! )
http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater


I won't be so nice to ask you a "TENTH" time here in this thread to do the testing in a scientific method required and do it correctly, not half ass or less as you have shown or are you incapable of the request.


Facts only Facts can you do that ? Are you capable Rosemary ? Do you need someone to hold your hand ?   ???


Fuzzy
 :P

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1333 on: May 20, 2011, 06:15:19 AM »
Guys here's the situation.

Until we could generate some hefty wattage through the system it could have been argued that we were using the functions generator as the source of that extra energy.  Until we used that superb little LeCroy Wavjet 324 it could have been argued that we were undersampling.  Until we used that equally superb Tektronix MSO 354 it could have been argued that the LeCroy measurements were wrong.  Until we had repeated those results it could have been argued that the results were anomalous.  Until we had demonstrated this publicly it could have been argued that there we had fabricated those results.  Until we'd put the CSR directly in line with the negative rail of the battery it could have been argued that our current computations were wrong.  And until we had shown a negative sum of voltage across the CSR it could have been argued that we were not getting COP infinity.

To add to the evidence.  Our last tests showed that the temperature over the resistor element rose to 240 degrees centigrade with the on period of the duty cycle set to 12mV for 18% of a duty cycle over a period of 2 hours and it then brought 0.7 litres of water to 80 degrees centigrade.  Then we changed the frequency.  The off set remained in the same position.  But now the temperature of the water rose to 104 degrees centigrade.  Therefore, conservatively speaking we were able to take water to boil at 0.12 watts of energy measured from the battery supply during this short 18 parts 'on' of every 82 parts off of each period of the duty cycle.  THEN if one takes into account the energy actually measured to have been delivered to the system - if one factors in the oscillation which was evident for the remaining 82 percent of the duty cycle - then there was more energy being returned than was first delivered by the supply.

Clearly there was something in the order of 100 watts or thereby of energy dissipated at the cost of absolutely nothing from the supply.

Those are the facts.  I am posting a 'close up' of where the 'offset' was positioned during the 'on' period and where it remained throughout that test period.  I was going to give a repeat of this and other tests for the forum - but as we're now to do a paper on this I'll only use the repeat data for that submission.

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1334 on: May 20, 2011, 04:10:58 PM »
And may I add that it's a matter of some considerable concern to me that Glen is allowed to litter and pollute this thread with this ridiculous and confrontational and rude posts - and that Harti, notwithstanding repeated requests - is not prepared to do anything about it.

It is almost as if he DOES NOT WANT THIS NEWS TO BREAK.  It is almost as if he ACTUALLY WANTS THIS THREAD TO BE INCINERATED.

I find that extraordinary.  In the light of the evidence that we now have to hand on PROOF of COP INFINITY - then one would assume that he would do everything to nurture rather than KILL OFF this knowledge.  I CANNOT understand it - not with the best will in the world.  WHY?  WHY when so much evidence is to hand is he most earnestly attempting to block the information?  Is it because he'd prefer that the news does not come from me?  Is he selecting the proof that he requires - instead of the proof as it's presented?  Is there some kind of selection in play?  Or is it perhaps that he does not actually support this drive of ours to crack the energy barriers?  Or must this information first come from a MAN - as opposed to a WOMAN?  Not sure?  I give up.  All I know is that he is positively and anxiously ensuring that this thread get flamed.

I also need you to all be alert to this.  I personally am doubly concerned that the romero test may - indeed - have been a required distraction to this our news.  It certainly seems that way.

Regards,
Rosemary